It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection. These are the times when maps fade, old landmarks crumble and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared. We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread. Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.

The path taking America back to constitutional governance just got steeper. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Review Court, a panel of judges picked for their sympathy toward government prerogative, has unsurprisingly ruled it to be perfectly OK for the United States to search, watch and grab information on people without warrants, despite the mandate of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution that such activity can only be done with a target-specific warrant written out on the basis of probable cause. The general gist of the argument, we’re told, is that it’s OK because the law uses the word “foreign,” and it’s OK to do these things to foreigners. Never mind that under the Protect America Act and subsequent FISA Amendments Act, surveillance tools can be turned on Americans for periods of two months or longer without any warrants, much less any consequences for government agents who do so. The law has the word “Foreign” in it, and the government can do what it wants to a foreigner, so the government can do anything to an American as well.

No, I can’t get too particular about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Review Court ruling. Why? The text of the ruling is being censored and redacted, of course, for citizens’ own protection. Journalists have very nicely asked the Justice Department and the authoritarian FISA court to comment, and the Justice Department and FISA court have very firmly ignored them. So that’s all you’re going to know, citizen.

While the ruling itself will be redacted and censored, the effect of this ruling will be visible. Watch for Senators, cabinet members and Presidents to spring to the ruling, citing its conveniently invisible existence as a justification for the continuation of warrantless surveillance programs. Constitution, schmonstitution: a three-judge panel has said it’s all OK! And so the force needed to counter all this, to undo warrantless wiretapping will be even greater.

This is why it’s a bad idea for Americans to place ice packs on their worn-out voting finger, sit back, relax and depend on any politician — any Senator, any Secretary, any President — to restore respect for the Constitution in the policies and practices of our government. With every additional ruling in favor of warrantless wiretapping, the weight of consensus against the Bill of Rights grows heavier. People who care must get off their plush barcaloungered behinds and push, push, push in the opposite direction. A lot of people have to do this to achieve any effect, but it’s only a lot of people who can. There’s no superhero to fly in and employ magic superpowers to save the day; the Great Spandexed One voted against warrants.

I believe that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus also, a move that you probably would have considered a threat to the “constitution”.

The right of writs of habeas corpus are granted in Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

I would imagine that a dirty bomb being detonated in a few US cities would be a public safety concern. Or would you rather wait until after that happened.

I take it that you don’t have the same concern for the degradation of the second ammendment, or the ninth and tenth as you do for the fourth.

This beggs the question: Do foriegners have the same protection as a citizen? What about a citizen that plots sedition?

Why are you bringing up habeas corpus in a piece about the 4th amendment?

Why do you assume I don’t support the other amendments of the Bill of Rights? Search for “second amendment” on this website.

For the answers to your final questions, read the Constitution.

How sad that you are so frightened that you prioritize your perception of safety over your freedom. Would you sacrifice the Constitution to stop traffic accidents, which kill many more every year than terrorism ever will?

Traffic accidents and willful acts of terrorism are worlds apart. One is by definition an accident, the other the premeditated and precisely planned attack on innocent civilians, by foreign agents with the potential help of seditious Americans. It is not the place of the Federal government to protect us from random accidents or self destructive behavior.( Contrary to some insipid do-gooders). It is however well within the Just powers and responsibilities of the Fed to protect us from foreign aggression. I have the faith that the powers you are fixated on will be removed when the crisis is over. I don’t live a a tightly wired world of paranoia. This country during wartime has in the past limited personal freedom to protect the population. Unlike some of the more egregious violations of the public trust that have happened in the name of Progressive policies, they were all repealed.

I brought up habeas corpus and Lincoln to illustrate the point that in times of War and serious concerns around public safety there are valid and justifiable restrictions of Constitutional freedoms.

As for searching you site, since it has changed I can’t find your search engine.

I wasn’t asking what the Constitution says. I asked what you think it says. People of good faith have differed in their interpretations since the beginning.

Fine, let’s go with your restrictions for the sake of argument. Are you willing to suspend the Constitution because Americans commit homicide — many more than die in terrorism.

It is not within the right of the federal government to violate the Constitution. The Constitution is very clearly set out as the supreme law of the land in Article VI. Article VI mandates that any laws by which the government acts must be in pursuance of constitutional standards.

The Constitution is very specific in its distinction between people and citizens. It grants rights to people under its jurisdiction, and in very particular instances further limits rights to citizens. See Article I for examples of the very clear language.

A meteorite could hit the earth, too. Do we suspend the Constitution to build a buffer of asteroid-blasting space weapons?

It could be argued that “more die than in terrorism” only because I so effectively pray to Jesus every night. You could argue it, but unless there’s empirical evidence for it I won’t take that argument seriously. There is no historical evidence for terrorism against the United States ever matching the murder rate.

We all are going to die as individuals some day. Your fear of death could cost the American experiment with freedom its life. I think the latter is more important.

Upcoming Protest

Liberal Buttons, Political Bumper Stickers and Sweat-Free Shirts

To keep our voices independent of moneyed interests, the writers of Irregular Times have never accepted money for advertising on this website. But we still have to pay the bills! To help cover our expenses, we sell our own designs of liberal activist bumper stickers, buttons and sweatshop-free shirts.